Corliss on "Elah"
"Those of us who weren't crazy about Crash thought it reduced each of its dozens of characters to one small virtue and big flaw. In In The Valley of Elah, Haggis is more open to his characters' drives and demons.
"The good guys, the ones so well played by Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon, have nuances worth noting; and even the ones capable of committing the most heinous crimes seem like decent people to whom some awful thing happened. (Special mention to Wes Chatham, who could be Matt Damon's younger, cuter brother, as a soldier testifying to Hank about the killing.)
"The combination of dedicated actors and a superior script helps make Elah a far more satisfying film than Crash." -- Time critic Richard Corliss in a 9.1.07 piece, "Iraq War Films Focus on Soldiers," filed from the Venice Film Festival.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 2, 2007 at 4:37 PM
comment #1
BurmaShave
says ...
I just wish he could have made MEDELLIN with Vincent Chase. Fuckin' AQUAMAN 2.
Posted by BurmaShave
at September 3, 2007 3:45 AM
comment #2
brandler
says ...
Jeffrey,
You seem to be acting like this film's mouthpiece, constantly telling all of your loyal devotees how miraculously marvelous this movie is. It almost seems like you're trying to shove it down our throats. Surely if it is the masterpiece you claim it is, it will be able to speak for itself and does not require an Oscar Blogger to present its laurels. That is unless it's not...
Posted by brandler
at September 3, 2007 4:35 AM
comment #3
gruver1
says ...
Wells to brandler: You're not paying attention to what's going on. I put the Corliss piece up as a conterweight to all the Haggis- and "Elah"-haters who are out there in force, beating the animal-skin drums and going ooga-booga. Plus I've been feeling a wee bit conflicted because I don;t care at all for a couple of Mark Isham musical moments added to the original version I saw in late June. I'm especially uncomfortable with an Annie Lennox song that's been thrown in for the finale. It just felt good to read a big name who agrees with what I said earlier.
Posted by gruver1
at September 3, 2007 7:22 AM
comment #4
brandler
says ...
I'm sorry for using this specific post to voice mny opinions, but it was the most recent one about the film and my comments didn't specifically relate to it. It just echoed my point that you seem to be shoving it down everyone's throats and defending it, like the barrage of criticism is somehow mistaken or misinterpreted.
Posted by brandler
at September 3, 2007 7:28 AM
comment #5
brandler
says ...
I'm not even a Haggis hater, it just affects your credibility when you become the mouthpiece for a movie so early on. Particularly having seen it before everyone else, and with an air of nobility, claiming that you had seen a remarkable film which you could not elaborate on. Then slowly you have been telling everyone how deep and truly special a film it is, before any other awards contenders came out. Having seen it and having mixed feelings about it as a cinephile and not as a Haggis hater despite loathing the didactic lesson in cultural relations that was Crash, I feel that you have some sort of agenda with your unabashed and rather conspicuous promotion of this film, as if you respect its awards chances more than any of its cinematic credentials.
Posted by brandler
at September 3, 2007 7:37 AM
comment #6
p.Vice
says ...
Yikes!! You're actually trying to defend your take on Haggis with backup from Richard Corliss, of all people? That senile hack isn't even respected anymore... Time's film coverage has been a joke for years, chiefly because of their refusal to can those two geriatrics who have been stuck waxing nostalgic for screwball comedy and think Clint Eastwood is cutting edge.
Shit, if that's what you're bringing to the table I don't even have to ooga-booga.
Posted by p.Vice
at September 3, 2007 9:22 AM